But, according to Lewis, none of us are really living up to those standards. So we all seem to believe in a real Right and a real Wrong.How can one complain about lack of fairness if there is no mutually agreed upon standard of fairness? Even those who say they don’t believe in a real Right and Wrong demonstrate that they do actually believe in such things - a promise-breaker will still complain if a promise made to him is broken, for instance.There have been cultural differences, to be sure, but nothing like what Lewis describes as “a total difference.” Lewis also points out that these standards have been shared by societies all over the world and throughout history.Lewis cites the Nazis as an example, asking how we could condemn and oppose them if there was not a standard of Right of which everyone could agree they had fallen short. Aside from the odd individual here and there who lacks a sense of right and wrong, or whose definitions vary drastically from the consensus, humanity as a whole seems to agree on what constitutes decent behavior, and what is unacceptable.

Unlike physical or chemical laws, Lewis says, humans are free to choose whether or not they wish to obey the law of human nature that tells us what right and wrong are.And to quarrel is to attempt to show the other person that they are wrong and you are right, which means that there must be a mutually agreed-upon definition of what “right” and “wrong” mean. Taking something that belongs to someone else without permission is not merely inconvenient for the person who has been stolen from - it is wrong. They don’t merely complain that a person’s behavior is offensive to them personally they appeal to a standard of behavior. Lewis establishes the existence and use of moral standards by referring to the way people talk when they are arguing.Book One: Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe

Mere christianity book 1